What is EU Inc., why are 50 European CEOs and investors—including representatives of Index Ventures, Accel, Balderton, Atomico, and EQT—warning EU lawmakers not to weaken it during final negotiations, which core provisions do they want preserved, how does the proposal relate to E

EU Inc. is the proposed “28th regime”: an optional EU-wide company form intended to let founders incorporate and operate under one harmonised framework across the single market, rather than stitch together 27 national corporate-law systems. Its practical test is whether the final law preserves a fast, genuinely cross-border and startup-compatible vehicle—not merely another form sitting alongside national ones. 24

Why founders and investors are intervening

The 50 CEOs and investors are warning that late-stage negotiations could dilute the features that make the regime investable and usable for venture-backed companies. Their concern is that national carve-outs, costly or slow formation, weak standardisation, or loss of flexible equity tools would leave founders still needing country-by-country legal structures. 256

They want the following core elements preserved:

• A central, fully digital EU incorporation route, valid throughout the Union, with a 48-hour fast track and a maximum €100 cost. 1456
• No minimum capital requirement. 16
• Startup-grade capital architecture: multiple share classes, flexible governance and modern financing instruments, plus straightforward digital share transfers and capital operations. 267
• An EU-wide employee-stock-option framework, including taxation deferred until shares are sold—important for recruiting talent when startups cannot match large-company cash salaries. 46
• Digital procedures throughout the company lifecycle, including insolvency, rather than a form that is EU-branded but administered through fragmented national processes. 267

The startup-relocation and scale-up connection

The policy objective is to reduce the friction that pushes European founders to establish, convert, or fund companies under more familiar and venture-compatible foreign structures—often described as the “Delaware flip”—and to make cross-border financing, hiring, equity compensation and expansion easier inside Europe. 24

Europe’s problem is not only starting companies but financing them at late stage: the Commission says many promising firms lack the equity capital needed to become global leaders and therefore seek funding outside Europe. 3

Scaleup Europe Fund: complementary, not a substitute

The roughly €5 billion Scaleup Europe Fund addresses the capital side of that problem, while EU Inc. addresses the corporate-law and operating side. The fund is a public-private late-stage/growth vehicle for strategic European technology companies—including AI, quantum, semiconductors, robotics, energy, space and biotech—and EQT was selected as preferred manager. 3

Its reported investment in Mistral AI illustrates the intended role: provide European-led growth capital for strategically important companies so that ownership, financing capacity and growth need not shift abroad. But a large fund cannot itself solve incorporation, share-structure, option-tax and cross-border administrative barriers; those are what EU Inc. is intended to address. 236

Academic criticisms

Legal academics broadly accept the value of digital formation and more flexible company-law tools, but argue that the proposal may fall short of its original startup-and-scaleup ambition. 7

Key criticisms include:

• It is open to virtually all companies, including established groups, rather than being designed tightly around high-growth firms; critics say this risks turning a targeted innovation instrument into a general corporate vehicle. 7
• The 48-hour and €100 promise is tied to standard templates, whose eventual content matters greatly. If they cannot accommodate preferred shares, multiple classes and other venture terms, meaningful startups may require bespoke documents and lose the fast, cheap route. 7
• The stock-option regime is optional and retains national elements, including national tax rates and classifications; that can limit its harmonising effect and leave uncertainty in cross-border cases. 7
• The broader risk is implementation: a formally EU-wide form can be ineffective if national gatekeeping, templates, tax treatment or procedural requirements recreate fragmentation. 7

Timeline and decisive vote

The Commission tabled the proposal on 18 March 2026, following the January 2025 Competitiveness Compass commitment to create a 28th regime. 27

The proposal now requires agreement by the European Parliament and Council. The salient upcoming Parliament decision is the expected vote at the end of the 2026 legislative process: it will determine whether lawmakers retain the central EU interface, fast/cost-capped incorporation, flexible capital rules and workable employee equity—or accept amendments that leave EU Inc. an optional but practically unattractive addition to national systems. The precise final vote date is not established in the evidence provided, so any exact date would be speculative.